Author
Topic: My problems with Orthodoxy (Read 2236 times)

"Let any Bishop, or Presbyter, or deacon that merely joins in prayer with heretics be suspended, but if he had permitted them to perform any service as Clergymen, let him be deposed." Canon XLV of the Holy Apostles

Well, our current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople certainly joins in prayers with heretics, so why is he not suspended?

And then I read this:

"If any clergymen, or laymen, enter a synagogue of Jews, or of heretics, to pray, let him be both deposed and excommunicated." Canon LXV of the Holy Apostles

Well, our current Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople certainly enters the church of heretics to pray, so why is he not deposed and excommunicated?I just don't understand this!

Now I read the Kelliotes Letter, which I cannot find a single fault with!

So, why are those canons incorrect, and why are those monastics incorrect? I have searched for the True Church of the Apostles, and I thought I found it in the Orthodox Church, but I am now having second thoughts. Why are these things happening!? Why is it allowed to happen!? I cannot stop thinking about these things, saying "If this is the True Church, then why is it imploding on itself, abandoning its teachings which make it unique in being able to claim an unchanging tradition and faith!"

Can someone please just tell me who is right and who is wrong!? Do not say that both are right, it is impossible!

This isn't an easy area that you are beginning to get into, but I'll say a few things about canons. First, since early times canons have been applied by bishops as they saw fit. Sometimes this means that a canon was largely unused. Not ignored, for the principles of the canon still held, but simply not applied practically in given situations. Thus when St. Gregory the Theologian moved to Constantinople, his theological opponents complained that he was in violation of canon 15 of 1st ecumenical Council, which said that a bishop should not go from city to city. But the canons are made for bishops to apply, not bishops made to be slaves to canons. The Church, through her hierarchy, applies the canons in the way that is most conducive to salvation in a given context. Sometimes this means leaving a canon fall dormant for a time, even while never forgetting the ideas behind that canon.

An example of a canon not followed in modern times is the 11st canon from Trullo, which forbids seeing a Jewish doctor, among other things:

"Let no one enrolled in the sacerdotal list, or any layman, eat the unleavened wafers manufactured by the Jews, or in any way become familiar with the Jews or call them in case of sickness, or take any medicines from them, or even bathe with them in public bathing beaches or bathhouses. If anyone should attempt to do this, in case he is a clergyman, let him be deposed from office; or, in case he is a layman, let him be excommunicated."

Now this canon is not strictly (if at all) applied these days, certainly in America and other such places. This does not render the canon obsolete or useless, it merely means that, at this time and in this place, the canon is not applied to our situation. Also consider the 2nd Canon from Trullo which, in accepting multiple canons from earlier councils and Fathers, ended up accepting multiple (and contradictory) Biblical canons. Now if you were to say that every canon had to be applied exactly and to the letter, then we should be walking around with multiple Bible canons, because that's what a canon of Ecumenical authority says, if we're following it to the letter. But this is not the way that it works. Canons are applied, they do not apply themselves, and while we all can learn from what the canons say, it's dangerous business trying to insist that a canon should be applied this way or that when our bishops go in an opposite direction.

It was just a different time. The educational system was different, the way people went about arguing their belief was different, the way people interacted with their neighbors, the way the government treated people, etc. It was a rough and difficult time, so the canons reflect that IMO. Our times are softer, in many ways. And while (for example) praying at the dinner table with someone of a different faith is now not something that should be condemned or avoided, the canons are still valuable as witnesses that we should be very cautious about heresy, and a warning that by becoming too friendly with those who differ we might lose ourselves or the saltiness/brightness of truth. Engaging the heterodox in friendly discussion is something to be cautious about, then and now, it's just that the approach and methods have changed somewhat. I say that as someone who has had more than a few productive conversations and been on both sides of the fence.

The severity of canons, or even their practice at all, are exercised by the episcopacy. In times past, no one dare step foot in a non-Orthodox Church...but now? Not so much. These canons now are more interpreted to refer to "Eucharistic prayer", that is, communing with non-Orthodox.

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

I think someone a while ago (was it Fr. Anastasios?) said that the "heretics" referred to in these canons referred to individuals who denied the Trinity, not necessarily heterodox in general. I am not 100% sure if this is true.

In any case, canons are not infallible and some discretion and economia can be practiced regarding them. These canons were written in a very different time with a very different socio-political climate. This is why some canons today are not really fully applied. This is not to say we should drop the canons altogether, but we must remember that The Church holds the canons and not the other way around.

« Last Edit: July 29, 2012, 01:05:07 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -Jesus Christ

Alright, your answers alleviated my concerns about the canons for now, but I still do not know how to react to the Kelliotes Letter.

For me, I see a huge division forming and it makes me lose faith. On one side there are the modernists, the new ecumenists, and the liberals. On the other the traditionalists and the conservatives.

And what makes me go crazy is I don't see anything being done about it! I am watching as slowly the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem become fully in favor of new ecumenism. The problem with this is though that it seems to me many of the laity are divided as well (as well as the monastics) while the Bishops and Patriarchs are becoming almost uniform in their thinking.

It just reminds me always of what the Roman Catholic Church went through in the 19th and 20th centuries, with now where the modernists prevailed yet on the laity level there are still a fairly large amount of dissenters.

Where will all of this end!? At the moment, I am persuaded by the letter from those monks. But with that, I can hardly not cry because I feel they are not winning this battle, especially on the level of the hierarchies.

very sorry for my terrible writing and ignorance, these things make me not feel well at all

Gunnar,Fear not, friend Many men may sever themselves from the Church, but the Church remains whole and, Glory to God, always prevails. Read about the lives of Saint Athanasius the Great, St. Maximus & Pope St. Martin the Confessor, Saint Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, or Saint Mark of Ephesus and take heart; they were all men who lived in the midst of mass betrayal, yet they remained completely committed to the Truth and serve as true witnesses to the Faith. You know that one psalm, "For though I should walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou are with me..."? Allow those words to comfort you. God bless and keep you!

Logged

From my youth have many passions warred against me, but do Thou Thyself defend and save me, O Saviour.

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Gunnarr, there have always been different views and opinions when it comes to these kinds of things. We can even look back at Church Fathers as retroactively assign labels of "liberal" or "conservative." Hell, there are plenty of saints who vehemently opposed one another for whatever reason, but now BOTH are saints. The Possessor/Non-possessor debate in Russia comes to mind, where there are plenty of saints from both sides of the debate. Let's not even mention some of the things St. Cyril of Alexandria said about St. John Chrysostom...talk about HARSH!

My point is, it is the Orthodox Faith that matters. There's plenty of "wiggle room" in these other matters, even between the saints. Christ has promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church...so let's believe that and not allow such things to give us such heartache, at which the demons surely rejoice.

« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 12:47:24 PM by Benjamin the Red »

Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy

If you shall hear that bishops advance against bishops, and clergy against clergy, and people against people even unto blood, be not troubled; for it has been written before. Take no notice of the things now happening, but the things which are written.

Alright, your answers alleviated my concerns about the canons for now, but I still do not know how to react to the Kelliotes Letter.

By ignoring it. To echo its introductory paragraph: One wonders if an Oecumenical Synod has been convened to abolish the canons that require monks to remain out of ecclesiastical affairs, to submit in humility to their bishops, and to never assume a teaching role in the Church.

Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)

If it really bothers you that much then just avoid the Greek Church and choose a different jurisdiction.

Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).

If it really bothers you that much then just avoid the Greek Church and choose a different jurisdiction.

That does not help anything! It just ignores the problem! And besides, as others pointed out, the Russian Orthodox are not doing so well either.

Quote

Gunnar,Fear not, friend Many men may sever themselves from the Church, but the Church remains whole and, Glory to God, always prevails. Read about the lives of Saint Athanasius the Great, St. Maximus & Pope St. Martin the Confessor, Saint Photius the Great, Saint Gregory Palamas, or Saint Mark of Ephesus and take heart; they were all men who lived in the midst of mass betrayal, yet they remained completely committed to the Truth and serve as true witnesses to the Faith. You know that one psalm, "For though I should walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou are with me..."? Allow those words to comfort you. God bless and keep you!

Thank you! About the readings, out of those many saints I have only read so far from Saint Gregory Palamas (The Triads). I wish to read more, but I am too low on money to afford any more books and I find I am too sinful to read the unread ones I have at this time. (I cannot remember which Saint said this, saying, to not read scriptures with a full belly or with sinful thoughts, which I am having trouble lately holding with)

Okay, I read it. but the Calendar is not too much of an issue for me. Did Elder Paisios ever speak of the ecumenism of our days?

Quote

Wait, what?

I slightly overstated, I only mean they are an active part of the World Council of Churches and seem much more in favor of new ecumenism (as compared to Patriarch Diodoros I)

Quote

+1. Also, get some Jesuit influenced theology books at just half price! And, act now, we'll throw in a "God the Father" icon for FREE!

Aiaiai! The icon (can it be called that?) of the main dome of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour drives me bonkers! (some insane artist tried to depict the Father!!!)

You guys have given me a chuckle!

Quote

Gunnarr, there have always been different views and opinions when it comes to these kinds of things. We can even look back at Church Fathers as retroactively assign labels of "liberal" or "conservative." Hell, there are plenty of saints who vehemently opposed one another for whatever reason, but now BOTH are saints. The Possessor/Non-possessor debate in Russia comes to mind, where there are plenty of saints from both sides of the debate. Let's not even mention some of the things St. Cyril of Alexandria said about St. John Chrysostom...talk about HARSH!

My point is, it is the Orthodox Faith that matters. There's plenty of "wiggle room" in these other matters, even between the saints. Christ has promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church...so let's believe that and not allow such things to give us such heartache, at which the demons surely rejoice.

But there was also only one correct side during the Iconoclasm, and also only one correct side in the council of Florence!!! These things worry me because it seems to be getting worse over time, the Patriarchate of Constantinople becoming more and more liberal and ecumenist and I see no end to it. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is always planning for a ecumenical "Great and Holy Council" and currently a this rate I am afraid that that council would just be to the Orthodox what the Second Vatican Council did to the Roman Catholics. Perhaps it is from the Ecumenical Patriarchate having hardly any of their traditional flock left...

Quote

By ignoring it. To echo its introductory paragraph: One wonders if an Oecumenical Synod has been convened to abolish the canons that require monks to remain out of ecclesiastical affairs, to submit in humility to their bishops, and to never assume a teaching role in the Church.

No, I do not feel it should be ignored. I cannot ignore it now at this point anyway. It will not leave my mind.

Also, your so called "echoing" seems very wrong. Many of those who signed it are Hieromonks, ie also Priests. And if you say this letter should not be of any note, then fine, let me just bring up the concerns of the Abbots here:

Are you saying they have no teaching role? Do Elders have no teaching role? Do you claim monks have no teaching role?

Or to just list some off:

Does Saint Anthony the Great have no teaching role?Does Saint Basil the Great have no teaching role? (as a monastic his writings and while also attending the Council of Constantinopole of 360 AD (was not a Bishop then, not even a deacon! Only a monk!)Does Saint Symeon the New Theologian have no teaching role?Does Saint Herman of Alaska have no teaching role when he helped bring the faith to the Americas as only a monk?Does Saint Maximus the Confessor have no teaching role?Does Saint Cosmas have no teaching role?Does Saint Sabbas the Sanctified have no teaching role?Does Saints Cyril and Methodius have no teaching role?Does Saint Anthony of Kiev have no teaching role?Does Saint Seraphim of Sarov have no teaching role?Does Saint Simeon Stylites have no teaching role?Does Saint John of Damascus have no teaching role, while being only a monk, he was one of the chief opponents against iconoclasm? No teaching role!?Does Saint Theodore the Studite have no teaching role?

Does Saint Symeon the New Theologian have no teaching role? He did not keep silent in rebuking Archbishop Stephen! He did not keep silent when he was exiled by the Patriarch of Constantinople!Who were the real saints? Saint Symeon, or Archbishop Stephen? Was the Archbishop correct, or was the lowly exiled monk correct? Should Saint Symeon should have kept silent?

Perhaps this Orthodox Hymn for Saint Symeon will shed some light:

They (the bishops) unworthily handle My Bodyand seek avidly to dominate the masses...They are seen to appear as brilliant and pure,but their souls are worse than mud and dirt,worse even than any kind of deadly poison,these evil and perverse men! (Hymn 58)

If we're laying all of the Orthodox Church's credibility on the shoulders of Patriarch Bartholomew, let's sure hope he doesn't have a Jewish doctor!

Not only on HAH!

It only worries me because I do not see anything being done about it, only schisms (which do not really address the problem). Also, the fact that at this point it seems the EP will always be this way as it looks to be their whole Synod is in the same view so like-minded Patriarchs will always be elected.

I think maybe the OP is in the wrong faith area may I suggest Islam there more narrow minded and If people don't agree with their rules you can strap bombs on or whip them for doing wrongs and sometimes par take in beheading of people just an idea to think on